Folklore/History: Irish Famine

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 08:20 PM

To be going on with
Jim Carroll

"you have insisted that "the vast majority of historians" hold your view"
"Your quote is fake. I never said that."
Most historians take the revisionist view.
The quotes produced on this thread indicated that most historians believe that the government was not responsible for the deaths.
Most historians take the revisionist view.
Al I had and have to say about blame is that most historians, especially the professional, academic ones, challenge it.
"The most rabidly nationalistic and flag wagging quote you can find.
The shouters down are those who did not want to read that most historians do not hold the government culpable.
The famine was a pivotal point in the history of Ireland, but more importantly it was a human catastrophe on a scale that defies the imagination.
The human stories should be told and retold, and never lost.
Grubby politicking and hate mongering should be no part of it.
We have seen that the dominant view among the real historians is that there is no blame and no cause for hatred.
Just sorrow.

""I never, ever claimed ANY VIEW!""
"As for the accusation that the famine was a wicked English plot, that of course is quite absurd; but as in many other things, the emotional myth remains much more powerful than the dull truth"

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 06:19 PM

Keith AH of Twatford beat this thread about the head and shoulders and it died a well-deserved death over two years ago.

Why

is

anyone

replaying

all

this

crap

with

this

bloody

eejit?

Kee-riste, what is this, "Groudhog Day" at Mudcat?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 05:58 PM

In one single post

1." Most historians do not accept them, as he himself admits"

2. "From the start I merely claimed that not all historians agree with you"

3. "My only case was always that not all historians agree with you"

4. "That means that most do not agree with you Jim"

You also state that "I do not lie" the above disproves that quite clearly.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 05:58 PM

In one single post

1." Most historians do not accept them, as he himself admits"

2. "From the start I merely claimed that not all historians agree with you"

3. "My only case was always that not all historians agree with you"

4. "That means that most do not agree with you Jim"

You also state that "I do not lie" the above disproves that quite clearly.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 03:24 PM

Nowhere has Coogan's salient points on the Famine been seriously challenged -

Yes they have.
Most historians do not accept them, as he himself admits.

You lie when you say "My case was that there are two views."
You have taken sides from the beginning;

I do not lie.
From the start I merely claimed that not all historians agree with you.
I did that by quoting a couple.
I never took sides.

you have insisted that "the vast majority of historians" hold your view,

I never, ever claimed ANY VIEW!
Your quote is fake. I never said that.
I did pick up and repeatedly quoted Kinealy's statement that revisionists "dominated."

My only case was always that not all historians agree with you.
I quoted several.
Kinealy goes further saying that historians who agree with her and you have been in a minority for eighty years and still are.
Coogan says the same

That means that most do not agree with you Jim.

My case is proven.
Thank you.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 03:07 PM

"Jim, the Irish Times regarded the reviewer as appropriate, so what is your opinion worth?"
The Irish Times in a popular newspaper that prints articles from all sides of the political spectrum and does not pick its reviewers because they represent any particular point of view - that's what makes it so interesting.
Show me one criticism of what anybody has challenged, not which newspaper they publish in - the only two you have come up with (after obviously having dredged the net for examples, are to people whoo are employed by British institutions and are peddling the revisionist British line that "we didn't do it"..
You've are now dredging the sewer for your responses (notice I did say argument) "racism" what kind of an individual are you?
You have had the arguments and the documented evidence - stop resorting to personal attacks about how I argue - if you have any disagreement with what I say - show me where it's wrong - you could do this by dismantling the arguments you are refusing to respond to - simple.
Nowhere has Coogan's salient points on the Famine been seriously challenged - most of them were common knowledge which has been ignored for political expediency.
His publishing of the Trevelyan letter has removed any doubt to Britain's reasons for their culpability.
Apart from your two defenders of the British Empire line, the most serious criticism I( have come across on 'The Famine Plot' is that it has no index (I confess, that irritated me too).
You lie when you say "My case was that there are two views."
You have taken sides from the beginning; you have insisted that "the vast majority of historians" hold your view, and you have insulted and abused anybody who dared to disagree with you, using terms like "bollocks" and "shite".
"All shite, no evidence, no truth".
NYou are now making this argument into an open display of self-flagellation - your choice.
Once again, my arguments are these - feel free to disprove them instead of adding even more abuse to your growing pile:
"If you have any evidence of who supports what, without ever reading a book, please tell me what they have to say about the following:
Didn't Trevelyan make his statements (about both the Irish and the Scots?
Wasn't he the British appointed as advisor on the Famine?
Didn't the Government lock full warehouses and put armed guards on them?
Didn't the Russell's Tory Government dismantle all the relief measures put into place by Peel's administration
Didn't they adopt a laisse faire policy of selling famine relief to impoverished Irish peasants at market prices?
Wasn't the suggestion made by Trevelyan that the Famine was a possible solution to the Irish Question?
Weren't the Irish people given the alternatives, emigrate or starve?
Is it not true that In the worst year of the famine, 'Black '47, boats loaded with relief travelled to and fro between Britain and Ireland without being unloaded in order to push up market priced caused by delaying the supplies?"
"I would like help finding out more."
It is becoming easier to trace relatives from Ireland, but it has also become a profit-making industry, hence a shark-infested swimming people.
The famine period is a particularly difficult one as so many left in a hurry, so many died on the journey, or on the Irish roadsides and were buried in unmarked graves.
One of the main obstacles was that many records were destroyed by the bombardment of the registry office during the civil war.
It's always seemed to me that the best start is a visit to the original homeplace and an examination of parish records; local folk- memory often yields some surprising result.
D.N.A studies have taken place for archaeological research, with some fascinating results - not sure how much it has been used in the Genealogical field
Good luck with that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 12:47 PM

What do we know about the travails of our ancestors? I know almost nothing. I had one ggm who travelled as an orphan from Kerry somewhere at the age of 7 or 8. Family presumed dead. No idea how she got here or where she landed...but her obit says she travelled with relatives.   I would like help finding out more.

Also I am curious about DNA studies. We know that relics of the dead are often found..have they done DNA studies? I would like to see it done although many would not.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 12:19 PM

But, you can not challenge anything that I have said, and you have nothing to say.
Right you two?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 10:34 AM

Some interesting points on this WikiHow Article, Guest of 09:56 AM.

Anyone watching the Cricket?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 09:56 AM

Why does this guy have to win everything, did his father beat him as a child? Is it his way of saying I'm a man now I win things.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 09:31 AM

Dave, first Harry Patch and now Charles Manson!

Anything to say about the famine?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 09:27 AM

Jim, the Irish Times regarded the reviewer as appropriate, so what is your opinion worth?
You can not just dismiss all historians from British universities, except the ones you like.

I did not refer to the damning review anyway, just the quote of Coogan.
It must be true or Coogan would have had it taken down.

When this thread began, you refused to accept that there was any other legitimate view but yours.
You excoriated me for suggesting there was.
You raged at me for putting up a couple of quotes.

Now you can say,
"There are two views of the Irish Famine - one that it was a natural disaster in which nothing could be done and no blame can be attached - the "revisionist view you have been expounding since day one."

Your education is complete, but I never did "expound" either view.

My case was that there are two views. That not all historians agree your view.
You have now accepted it.

Moreover, both Kinealy and Coogan say that your view is a minority and long has been.

My case is more than proved.
Thank you.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 09:03 AM

"His job is professor of history."
For ****'* sake Keith - haven't you taken enough of a battering on this?
There are two views of the Irish Famine - one that it was a natural disaster in which nothing could be done and no blame can be attached - the "revisionist view you have been expounding since day one.
The other is that the outcome of The Famine was due to deliberate neglect and mismanagement -
Kinealy's point in her attack on revisionism gave the reasons for the first as the need to placate Britain - she specifically mentions immigration and The Northern Ireland peace process having been given as an excuse for not apportioning blame, and she urged that a proper examination of the causes of the outcome of the famine needs to be carried out if it is to be fully understood.
Britain has always dismissed claims that its actions led to one million deaths and one million people leaving the country.
As Kinealy points out, the revisionist have always avoided apportioning blame.
For Christ's sake - I don't need to reiterate this - you've been claiming that the revisionist view has been the "majority" one since this started YOU KNOW BLOODY WELL THERE ARE TWO VIEWS OF THE HISTORY OF THE FAMINE - YOU'VE BEEN BASING ALL YOUR CLAIMS ON THAT THE REVISIONIST VIEW IS THE MAJORITY ONE
Since the 150th anniversary of the Famine, the tables have been turned and a mass of fresh study has taken place on the famine -- prior to that, the literature on the subject was incredibly sparse, the most respected one being by an Englishwoman, Mrs Cecil Woodham Smith.
What on earth do you think a review of Coogan's book by an English historian based in Belfast University proves? - England is still very much in the revisionist camp - now the minority.
Lie down - you're dead
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 08:56 AM

Good egg is Charles Ma Son

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 08:48 AM

Did you know that there are thousands of Charles Manson supporters all over the world? There is a campaign, a web site and everything. Far more people have said he is illegally incarcerated than those who have stated he is a criminal nutcase. As his supporters can be proved to be in the majority it must be true that he is an honourable and much misunderstood person. Makes you think...

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 08:37 AM

Has to try and have the last word doesn't he.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 08:21 AM

According to your Irish Times, Coogan himself "laments" that his view is "out of favour both in Irish official discourse and in Famine historiography."
http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/polemic-without-plausibility-1.963743

My case proven.
Thank you.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 08:15 AM

Kennedy teaches the Bristish one - that's his job

No.
His job is professor of history.
Unlike the Soviet Union, there is no official, state approved version of history.
University professors are not directed to pursue any particular school of thought.

You can not dismiss all British historians unless they agree with you.
You can not dismiss all non British historians unless they agree with you.

There are as you say broadly two schools on the famine.
The historians refer to them as nationalist and revisionist, not Irish and English.

The revisionists are dominant and have been since the 1930s.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 03:15 PM

"His most quoted works are on the Irish famine of the late 1840s."
His claim to fame is that the Irish peasantry were forced to resort to cannibalism during the Famine
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 01:24 PM

"Are you suggesting some kind of conspiracy?"
No - I am suggestion that there are two histories of Ireland - one from the Irish point of view and one from the English - no argument with that, Kinealy points this out in her analysis on revisionism.
Kennedy teaches the Bristish one - that's his job - no conspiracy
If I'd have started quoting chunks of 'The History of The Soviet Union' as officially accepted by The various Soviet Governments (there are three of them), you'd have been the first to throw your toys out of the pram.
If you read his argument on Coogan's book you will see that he states that no historian has ever studied the whole of the Irish Famine (somewhat disingenuous, as he certainly hasn't, so what does he mean - o comments ca be made on the Famine until those making it have studied every aspect of it?)
You seen to have reverted to your contemptuous insulting, which you claim you don't do - so, unless you are going to deal with the undisputed facts of the Famine, as you have been asked to, instead of hiding behind historians you have not read, nor are interested enough ever to do so, I think we're finished here, don't you?
Over and out
Jim Carroll
.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 12:52 PM

Kennedy is employed by a British University in Northern Ireland and is putting forward the British argument on the famine

There is no "British argument" Jim.
Are you suggesting some kind of conspiracy?
British universities concealing the truth to protect the long dead and somehow persuading their Irish professors to play along!
History professors collude to create a false history, directing their students away from research that might reveal the truth!

Laughable Jim!

And this one is obviously a British spy!
Cormac Ó Gráda is an Irish economist, a professor of economics at University College Dublin, and a prolific author of books and academic papers.
As a historian of economics his most quoted works are on the Irish famine of the late 1840s.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 12:49 PM

"Can we move this to BS please, or close it."
Sorry Dave, no grounds for closing it apparently, and we've no control over where it's put - doesn't make much difference anyway - all over, bar the shouting
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 12:16 PM

"Presumably we should dismiss anything s"
Nope - she is a peripatetic historian who is accepted all over the world
You have the facts of the famine - dispute them or provide someone who can
Not going on your "find a historian to hide behind" excursion - address the facts or go away - simple as that.
"Your hatred of British people is offensively racist Jim."
Back to your old "racist" maneuvers again - tell me, has Britain ever accepted responsibility for the famine in any way, other than Blair's apology. again
Kennedy is employed by a British University in Northern Ireland and is putting forward the British argument on the famine - nothing to do with race, any more than criticising British politicians for putting forward British policy.
Stop wriggling and address the points instead of making personal attacks that don't hold water.
You really are something else
I take it you have not been abble to find anything bad to say about Coogan's book?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 11:53 AM

Can we move this to BS please, or close it.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 11:42 AM

Presumably we should dismiss anything said by Kinealy because she is a Brit and spent many years working in British universities, so she must automatically lie about the famine.
Your hatred of British people is offensively racist Jim.

I wonder where Cormac Ó Gráda comes from?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 11:20 AM

Miseed a bit:
"he works for Queens University Belfast" and his line is that of the revisionists who set out to either to defend or ignore British culpability (according to Kinealy's definition).
"Harry Patch"
Lovely man Dave but an inveterate liar according to the supporters of W.W.1. who both claimed that soldiers are not to be trusted as they tell lies
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 10:46 AM

Harry Patch

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 10:37 AM

"Liam Kennedy was born in rural Tipperary."
Don't care where he was born - he works for Queens University Belfast
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 10:08 AM

He's a Brit
No.
Liam Kennedy was born in rural Tipperary.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 09:38 AM

"but I am sure there are many historians."
Quote them then - there has not been a single challenge to Coogan's findings and little regarding his conclusion on those findings
All Coogan has don is to provide hard evidence of Britain's intent during the famine - the belief that it was deliberate policy has always been widespread; as Kinealy says, it has been studiously avoided by revisionist Historians, who have based their findings on Nationalism, and by politicians who have taken a pragmatic and opportunistic approach to the question.
"He clearly rejects Coogan's finding"
He's a Brit and Britain has yet to take full responsibility for her actions during the famine, but even he accepts the devastating effect on British policy on the Irish people.
"Read how he dismisses them in their debate."
I listened to the debate - it was curtailed through lack of time and he in no way attempted to deal with Trevelyan's letter and its implications - a sure sign that he had no answer to it.
The fact thar Kinealy is now regarded as the leading expert on the Famine in Ireland is indicative that revisionism has been kicked into touch
The books most respected on the subject here are hers and 'The Graves Are Walking' by John Kelly.
You don't read books on the subject, you are not interested in the subject - your sole interest is in absolving Britain from blame - that has been your stance on all historical and political subject - too late, too late, the maiden cried!!
You really do have no case, nor have you ever had one.
Your only course in convincing anybody you are right is to take the list of Britain's actions you have been given and disprove them individually - each one of them indicates (at the very least) malicious neglect by the Russell Government and almost certainly, deliberate ethnic cleansing - Trevelyan's letter confirms that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 09:24 AM

Same link,

"The charge of genocide is rejected in three other books published in a rich period for monographs on the subject: John Kelly's The Graves Are Walking; Enda Delaney's The Curse of Reason; and – most ambitious of all – the multi-authored Atlas of the Great Irish Famine. "

"Coogan rounds up the
usual suspects, but the mortality was neither calculated nor premeditated. In legal parlance, there might be a case for charges of 'manslaughter' or 'wilful neglect' against Wood et al, but the case for premeditated 'murder' is unproven."

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 09:21 AM

It took me two minutes to find another.

"The Famine Plot is most noteworthy for its retro, strongly anti-English stance and for articulating a charge that won't wash but won't go away."
Cormac Ó Gráda is the author of Famine: A Short History (Princeton, 2009)
http://www.historyextra.com/book-review/famine-plot-england%E2%80%99s-role-ireland%E2%80%99s-greatest-tragedy-0

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 09:14 AM

The only single challenge to Coogan's book Keith has been able to come up

I have not been trying to find people who disagree with his book, but I am sure there are many historians.

one modern historian - hardly a majority, and one who would say that anyway, wouldn't he

Why would he?
He clearly rejects Coogan's findings. Read how he dismisses them in their debate.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 06:41 AM

"Just for the record Professor"
Just for the record - Kinealy wrote her remarks on the revisionists being in the majority at the time of the 150th anniversary of the Famine in 1995 - twenty years ago.
That anniversary produced a landslide of books, documentaries, lectures and events on the subject which lasted for at least a decade, and are still appearing.
Her personal view was that she she started as an agnostic as regarding the blame for the famine and her own position now is that, due to her researches, she now firmly believes that it was deliberately used by the Russell Government - a form of ethnic cleansing.
Her writings on revisionism (20 years old) stated that the old view was based on Irish nationalism and the need for Ireland to placate its neighbour (this is the view which Keith appears to be supporting)
Since 1995, the questions of Britain's culpability, in the form of closure of warehouses and workhouses, selling of famine relief at marker prices, export of food from a starving country, mass evictions for non-payment of rent and forced emigrations are all accepted by all historians - that is now what is appearing on our television screens and being taught by teachers and lecturers.
Trevelyan's letter castigating the Irish for their evil and lazy ways and suggesting that the famine should be utilised to rid Ireland of dissident elements, published in Tim Pat Coogan's book, containing has never been contradicted or denied by any historian - it is historical fact - history has moved on, as Kinealy has predicted it would - those who have always claimed that Britain was fully to blame have been vindicated and revisionism as a majority is a thing of the past.
The only single challenge to Coogan's book Keith has been able to come up with is from a British historian who has admitted Britain's culpability for what they did but claims they were not in the position to do anything else - one modern historian - hardly a majority, and one who would say that anyway, wouldn't he - Britain has never accepted full responsibility for what they did during the famine, though even the British Prime Minister has now apologised when he said ".....that one million people should have died in what was then part of the richest and most powerful nation in the world is something that still causes pain as we reflect on it today. Those who governed in London at the time failed their people." - one small step for humanity!
Anybody seriously challenging Britain's blame needs to read what is now being written and argue on the basis of the points Keithj has now been asked to comment on about a dozen times, here and elsewhere.
Chiristine Kinealy is now regarded as one of, if not the leading historian on the subject of the famine - she is not in the minority - she is leader in the field, and her views are unchallenged (except by Keith who is neither knowledgeable or interested, by his own admission - she must be quaking in her boots!!)
Wanna try again Keith: "Didn't Trevelyan make his statements"... etc?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 06:40 AM

Did you know the anagram of famine was "in fame"?

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 05:39 AM

Name five people who liked it.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 05:35 AM

My grandmother made wonderful jam.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 04:55 AM

Rag,
Just for the record Professor there are scores, if not hundreds, of books about the famine.

I know.
I said few if any on the historiography.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 04:42 AM

Just for the record Professor there are scores, if not hundreds, of books about the famine. Try walking into an Irish bookshop.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 04:34 AM

You win again eh Keith - we're all gobsmacked
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 04:23 AM

No.
It is all in this thread and no-one wants it all gone over again.
Why expect to be spoon fed Rag? Just read this thread.

Although Irish history is not one of my interests, since this thread I have taken an interest in the historiography of the famine.
There are few if any books on the subject. It is mostly debated in the journals which are available on line.
I have reproduced some of it here.

You can not claim that there are no historians who disagree with Jim.
I have quoted several.

You can not argue with Christine Kinealy who says they are dominant and long have been.

That is my case, and it is proved.
Thank you.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 07:35 PM

I will ask again, name 5 historians who do not agree with Jim. If, as you so confidently
claim, most historians do not agree with him name them, quote their works.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 03:05 PM

Your case was that my and all the others who disagreed with you, ideas were "rubbish"

No Jim. You imagined that or made it up.

My only case was always that not all historians agree with Jim.
Liam Kennedy proves that.
Kinealy goes further saying that historians who agree with her and Jim have been in a minority for eighty years and still are.

That means that most do not agree with Jim.

My case is proven.
Thank you.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 02:56 PM

"They prove my case that not all historians agree with Jim."
Your case was that my and all the others who disagreed with you, ideas were "rubbish"
Would you like that list of insults aimed at proving you were right and we were moronic idiots again?

"Historical truth has no value to a prejudiced bigot"
"The historical truth must not get in the way."
"You need excuses and justification for your prejudice, and if eighty years of consensus is not enough for you, you are destined to die still loathing us"
"If you need a peg on which to hang your irrational hatred of us, you will have to find something else."
"And look at how angry it has made some of you just to have the accepted version of history just briefly referred to."
"That is as fascist as it comes.
"All shite."
"No evidence".
"No truth."

You have now adapted tor claims from "all except the revisionists and "republican fanatics" to "the vast majority", to "most" and now to "not all" - you have retreated faster than Napoleon did from Moscow.
You described be as a Republican fanatic who hated Britain" and you talked down to everybody who suggested you were wrong.
"but I do know that most historians do not agree with you."
You know no such thing - you are lying.
You have no idea what historians believe =- you have admitted you know nothing and you are not interested in the subject - how can you possibly know who thinks what.
You refuse to respond to the evidence that points to British culpability - answer enough.
Try them one at a time:
"Didn't Trevelyan make his statements (about both the Irish and the Scots? Wasn't he the British appointed as advisor on the Famine?"?
I honestly can't remember anybody being prepared to debase and humiliate themself as you have here.
Please feel free to stay away from serious discussions again - it's bad for your image.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 02:45 PM

"They prove my case that not all historians agree with Jim.
My case is proved"

But that is NOT your case you stated, clearly " that most historians do not agree with you"

In my book there is one hell of a difference between "NOT ALL" and "MOST"

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 02:26 PM

Rag, I have quoted many.
I am not going through it again for you.
It is in the threads.

My only case is that not all historians agree with Jim.
Liam Kennedy proves that.
Kinealy goes further saying that historians who agree with her and Jim have been in a minority for eighty years and still are.

She should know!
Who are YOU to contradict HER?

They prove my case that not all historians agree with Jim.
My case is proved.
Thank you.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 02:10 PM

Come to think of it even name, lets say five, historians who disagree with Jim. You say that MOST do not agree with him, let us see who they are.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 02:06 PM

Quote from these historians, name books written by these historians.

F*****g idiot

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 02:02 PM

On my side?
I have no opinion about the famine, but I do know that most historians do not agree with you.
Kinealy concedes that her view (and yours) is NOT the dominant one.

She supports my case that most historians do not agree with you.

Subject: RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 01:52 PM

You quote Kinealy here as bing on your side
28 Jul 13 - 07:35 AM

If you have any evidence of who supports what, without ever reading a book, please tell me what they have to say about the following:
Didn't Trevelyan make his statements (about both the Irish and the Scots?
Wasn't he the British appointed as advisor on the Famine?
Didn't the Government lock full warehouses and put armed guards on them?
Didn't the Russell's Tory Government dismantle all the relief measures put into place by Peel's administration
Didn't they adopt a laisse faire policy of selling famine relief to impoverished Irish peasants at market prices?
Wasn't the suggestion made by Trevelyan that the Famine was a possible solution to the Irish Question?
Weren't the Irish people given the alternatives, emigrate or starve?
Is it not true that In the worst year of the famine, 'Black '47, boats loaded with relief travelled to and fro between Britain and Ireland without being unloaded in order to push up market priced caused by delaying the supplies?
What does your British Belfast writer say about them - what does anybody say about them - quotes on the specific items please?
If you have none, what do you think of them - if they are true - then you have no case
Jim Carroll